Should the DM accommodate characters, or characters accommodate DMs?

[Rechan]

I've encountered this in D&D a lot, but it could be extrapolated to any system where the mechanics of a class or a character's abilities require some "fitting". This specific situation is making me expand the question to a more general one, but the specific situation is one I'm going to hang my hat on.

In D&D, there's always been the desire to play the mounted knight. There's also incentives - to the extent the Paladin class got a magical mount.

However, this causes a lot of problems. Because many adventures take place in areas that a mount can't go. This lead to small characters using medium mounts.

But, it's also to the point that I think this is one reason 4e has not made mounts very optimal. Sure, you can use a mount, but there's not a build that lets you really shine while mounted.

So here's my question: Why should the player have to say "I want to play this, but I can't because it doesn't facilitate the DM's future adventures"? Why should the DM not say "My player has chosen to focus a lot of his feats/abilities/character concept/whatnot on a mounted character, therefore I should sparingly use areas the mount cannot access?

If a player shows up wtih a character who's heavily focused on non-combat skills, the assumption is that the DM should offer some opportunities for that character's skills to come into play, therefore letting the character shine. Correct? Then why not for the mounted PC and his abilities? Unless the DM says "This is going to be a combat heavy game" or "There's not going to be a lot of negotiations/sneakiness/whatnot", discouraging someone ahead of time from playing a Diplomat/Skill monkey, then the player isn't being a fly in the DM's ointment, but the DM is being designing adventures to not facilitate the player.

Since the DM has all the power, and can place the Pcs where ever he wants, have his adventures take place where he wants, then why SHOULD he say "Sorry Jeff, everywhere you guys go is indoors and cramped, so no horse room". I mean, if you really want an underground area or a DUNGEON, that still doesn't mean you have to say "No Horses Allowed": a dungeon built by a Giant. Or large caverns (after all, how else do displacer beasts and other Large monsters move around in the Underdark?).

Again, unless the character goes against the grain of the campaign (I.e. a city-skillset character in a Wilderness/Exploration game, a Horse mounted character on a ship-based game), what's the problem here?

 

[Mark Chance]

Should the DM accommodate characters, or characters accommodate DMs?

Both. When I DM, I give players a general idea about what sorts of characters just won't work well. Depending on the adventure (for a one-shot) or the campaign (for the multi-shot ), these parameters shift quite a bit. Once I put on the DM hat full-time again, my next campaign will be a sandbox mixture of wilderness, town, dungeon, and water voyage. Those are big parameters.

Once the characters are made and have met with my approval, the burden for accommodation shifts from the players to me. If I have a player who's invested skill points in Craft (firearms), I need to make sure that his character gets a chance to craft some firearms. If another player picks up Skill Focus (Perform [acting]), I need to make sure his character gets a chance to act.

So, does this mean that a "player [who] has chosen to focus a lot of his feats/abilities/character concept/whatnot on a mounted character" should get the chance to play that concept? Yes, I as the DM need to give him opportunities to do his horsey thing.

Caveat: Now, these accommodations by me won't happen every game session, but they will happen. So, Sir Ridesalot is going to end up facing situations in which his particular concept is less than optimal.

 

[fanboy2000]

You are indeed correct. If the DM has not, prior to character creation told player that a legal choice isn't a good one because of the nature of the adventure/campaign, then the DM should provide opportunities for the PC to use the various abilities they possess.

The timing of your question is, for me, impeccable. I just had a player express a desire to buy a rage drake and use it for a mount. I've given my approval, so we'll see if I live-up to my statement or become a hypocrite!

 

[los]

Both.

A player who builds a character without consulting his DM is just asking for trouble.

A DM who doesn't tell his players important information about the campaign is just asking for trouble.

The root of the problem is the whole model where players make characters without consulting each or the DM about what characters will be appropriate to the campaign and compatible with the other player characters. For many years now, most of my games have started with a session for character creation and getting to know the setting.

 

[Rechan]

A DM who doesn't tell his players important information about the campaign is just asking for trouble.

Well, it's not even that.

Assuming the DM has no pre-set campaign, with no general focus, it still comes up, they still have to think about this sort of thing when they design their adventures. Mounts mean certain environments are out, or to be used sparingly, or a concession for the PC is necessary (such as a flying mount or a Figurine of Wondrous Power), even after the DM has accepted the character.

 

[Dice4Hire]

Both, certainly.

I have DMed a lot, especially online, and it can be hard to guide players into characters that will fit the party, world and adventure. Even when sitting down around a table, the negotiation process can be difficult, but online it is a lot harder.

I do believe a DM should provide some guidelines and players should think of the party when they make up characters. Characters that are effective, interesting and allow the rest of the party to play are highly preferred. One trick ponies, or ubermenschs are not preferred. I especially remember players in 3.x especially, who seemed to enjoy making alignment conflicts a central part of the gaming experience. Paladin plus assassin, or such, Maybe it would be fun for them to be the focus of attention and have everyone trying to work around them, but it is no fun for the DM or other players.

It seemed to me that there was a subset of player who really seemed intent on riding roughshod in any game.

 

[FireLance]

Ask the question in another way, and the answer becomes (hopefully) obvious:

"Should you accommodate your friends, or should your friends accommodate you?"

The simple answer, as a few posters have already said, is "both".

The more complex answer involves discussion, finding out how much each party likes and dislikes each outcome, compromises, taking turns, and a whole spectrum of other possible ways that a group of people who presumably like each other well enough to spend leisure time together resolve differences of opinion.

 

[Theo R Cwithin]

It's a two way street. The player needs to make sure the PC fits the DM's campaign, and the DM needs to make sure the player has enough info to make such a character.

Once play begins, yes, I think the DM really needs to be making an effort to let the PCs use their talents and express their "schticks".

Assuming the DM has no pre-set campaign, with no general focus, it still comes up, they still have to think about this sort of thing when they design their adventures.

Definitely. That means a DM who uses a lot of published adventures has to extra careful, too. There are lot of published dungeon crawls out there that don't really accommodate mounts! So the DM definitely needs to be aware of stuff like that.

 

[Artoomis]

I am, not sure how doable this is in 4e as written today, but a small character on a medium mount should work. It would also probably help offset some of the issues with being small.

I did a mounted halfling paladin in 3.5e with great success. I even had celestial armor barding, so once per day (I think it was that) he could fly. Very cool, very deadly.

 

[Beginning of the End]

The problem only arises because the DM is railroading his players. Remove the railroad and the problem resolves itself.